Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2013] FCA 1142

Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2013] FCA 1142

The Court refused Samsung leave to rely on the Kim and Korea Statements because the evidence was served nearly a year after Samsung's evidence was due, Samsung gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the evidence and foreshadowed pleading amendments would significantly expand and disrupt an advanced and carefully timetabled proceeding, Apple would reasonably need further discovery and lay and expert evidence to respond, and the probative value of the Proposed Statements was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Apple and undue waste of time under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Patent and Competition Proceeding / Application by the Applicants Dated 6 September 2013 for Leave to Rely on Two Witness Statements Filed Out of Time
Outcome
Samsung's application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Rely on Evidence Filed Out of Time' 'case Management Principles' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'settlement Negotiations Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 131 Exceptions' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135 Exclusion' 'frand Licensing Negotiations' 'standard Essential Patents']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'patent Litigation' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['leave to Rely on Evidence Filed Out of Time' 'case Management Principles' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'settlement Negotiations Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 131 Exceptions' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135 Exclusion' 'frand Licensing Negotiations' 'standard Essential Patents']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Patent and Competition Proceeding / Application by the Applicants Dated 6 September 2013 for Leave to Rely on Two Witness Statements Filed Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Samsung should be permitted to file and rely on the Kim Statement and the Korea Statement nearly a year after the due date for its evidence' 'Whether the proposed evidence of negotiations was excluded by s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or admissible under s 131(2) exceptions' 'Whether the probative value of the Proposed Statements was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or undue waste of time under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether case management considerations, including delay, lack of explanation, prejudice to Apple and disruption of the hearing timetable, required refusal of leave']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused Samsung leave to rely on the Kim and Korea Statements because the evidence was served nearly a year after Samsung's evidence was due, Samsung gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the evidence and foreshadowed pleading amendments would significantly expand and disrupt an advanced and carefully timetabled proceeding, Apple would reasonably need further discovery and lay and expert evidence to respond, and the probative value of the Proposed Statements was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Apple and undue waste of time under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Samsung's application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants' application dated 6 September 2013 be dismissed with costs." 'These reasons not be published and must be kept within the confidentiality regime agreed by the parties, until further order.' 'The parties email submissions regarding publication of these reasons to the Associate to Bennett J by 5.00 pm...